A couple of caveats are in order. First, I probably disagree politically with much ofSmartGirlPolitics.org’s agenda — I know I disagree completely with the group’s position on abortion rights. But as a nonpartisan, I’m also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith.

I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her “routine” are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Others on the list, however, are not venom-spewing at all. One woman mentioned on the atlasshrugs2000 blog is a regular guest on my PBS show. Amanda Carpenter, on the show at least, eschews personal judgment of people with whom she disagrees politically. So her inclusion on the Playboy list is much more offensive to me than is the inclusion of Ms. Malkin, although their political views may not differ greatly.

So a rape-fantasy list is fine for a “venom-spewing” woman. That’s right. Most women don’t deserve rape except for the ones who “have it coming.” You know, the girls wearing short skirts, they kinda ask for it.

It’s nice to see a modern feminist clarify her position. Cyber-rape is fine for some people.

Bonnie Erbe’s opinion is rare — rare in that she actually hinted, if mildly, that the list is distasteful. She actually said something. Anne Schroeder Mullins of Politico acted the role of passive bystander by whitewashing and sanitizing the list.

Most feminist women did what they abhor the most: they remained silent.

Rather than coming to the defense of the sisterhood, feminist writers and bloggers turned their heads. Conservative women get what they have coming. They aren’t sisters anyway. They are women who have the nerve to disagree with the “real” women. Real women have one central belief and that is the right to abortion.

Ray Cimbalo committed the crime that the Playboy editors and public relations department set up. Feminist women watched the crime from the sidelines and did nothing. They remained silent. Feminist men defended the cyber-rape.

Meanwhile, besides the women on the list and other conservative women media members (Megyn Kelly, Michelle Malkin, Elizabeth Blakney, the Smart Girls ladies, etc.), who presented the most vociferous defense?

The feminist women remain silent. I don’t expect them to find their voices anytime soon. These are the same women who defended Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment and blamed the victims. These are the same women who savaged Sarah Palin based on her hair, her clothes, and her choice to have a special needs child. And now, these are the women who stand by and watch other women get attacked because they are beautiful and believe differently. The feminists say nothing.

The fact is, feminists want conservative women muzzled. And evidently, even cyber-rape is an acceptable way to silence their ideological opposition. Duly noted.

222 Comments, 222 Threads

well. to be fair, when muslim women are subjected to the mysoginistic attitudes of their own families and society, western feminists often remain silent.

obama paid the women on his staff less than the men for the same work, but the feminists remained silent.

feminists really aren’t very consistent. they are VERY pro-abortion, but think sex-selected abortions (when baby girls are aborted) are abhorrent and should be stopped. what happened to their idea of “choice”?

In Islam, the fundamentalists kill other muslims despite it being explicitly prohibited in the Koran. Their justification? Some muslims aren’t Islamic enough and therefore aren’t really muslims at all so killing them is a-ok.

Sounds very much like the feminist agenda doesn’t it? Conservative women aren’t really women at all and therefore don’t fall under the protective umbrella of the sisterhood so let them be humiliated, abused, subjugated or raped…..no skin of the sisters nose eh?

Is it any wonder why so many people treat these “modern” feminist harpies with disdain? The real feminists who fought for real women’s issues in the early and mid 20th century would no doubt be ashamed.

The word “feminist” has now come to mean “left wing feminist”, which is a shame. But I agree with the article otherwise.

Rape fantasy is one extreme, but in other ways conservative women are seen as fair game for the kind of vile misogyny that would not be tolerated if they were on the left.

Sarah Palin, and, in her time, the UK’s Margaret Thatcher, are cases in point. Michelle Malkin said that she gets racist abuse too – her maiden name, Maglagang was mocked. If she were a liberal such abuse would be denounced from the pulpits, as racism is an even worse sin than sexism.

The bit that caught my attention was when Bonnie Erbe said that she hadn’t paid attention to Michelle Malkin in years, but she just “knew” that Malkin’s posts are “venomous and predictable”. *Snort*

I’m sure everyone has their own prejudices about people whose work they don’t read, but if you’re trying to make a logical point, you can’t use that line. Especially if you’re trying to convince your readers that their inclusion on a hate f*** list is actually acceptable. Because of their work. Which you don’t read.

And where is Malkin venomous? I actually first read her work because a liberal friend said she was spectacularly awful, but no one seems able to give specific examples. I think the idea of a strong conservative woman, a conservative working mother and a conservative minority scares the living daylights out of them.

Hmm, a couple of thoughts. I’m not sure whether Cimbalo’s article rises to the level of hate speech or threatened violence, I hope the “top ten” are considering legal action. Against him and/or Playboy.

The threat of rape…a common tactic to keep women “in their place”. What if the “top ten” were to respond with an article naming ten men they’d like to “hate f***” Cimbalo? How would that be received and would Playboy publish it?

None of this comes as any surprise to me.
Feminism is only about self-interest, and the destruction of men and the family through political means.
Nothing else is of any importance. Feminists don’t give a rodent’s posterior about women, in practice. It’s only about political gains.

So where will we as Conservatives stand when 2012 rolls around and they start bashing Sarah Palin (or whatever female GOP dare take the stage) again? Will we hide under rocks as we did in the last election and hide from the liberal verbal assaults? Will we finally choose to stand up for once?

The left (which includes feminist groups like NOW) have shown they are willing to throw ANYONE that gets in their way whether it be almost full term babies, women, the elderly. You name it. Witness their vitriol on this website alone. It’s time, if you have a voice, to use it.

I have to highlight a previous poster whom I agree with totally… Re #11 Ed Wallis: “It’s high time for conservatives – and all Americans, when you think about it – to mock these hypocritical Leftists – relentlessly.” Well said. Point taken. Anyone else?

Liberal Feminists are interested in one thing:revoking biological reality,through the use of government. Like the rest of the left,they are stalinist fantasists,and are committed to brutal imposition of an ideological fantasy, rather than freedom or justice.In their twisted minds,killing viable babies, and suppressing biologically causesd differences,are exercises in righteousness.They are rabid scum,and need to be recognized and treated as the psychotic totalitarian fanatics they really are.

Liberal men hate conservative women because they feel castrated by leftwing feminists. Whenever they have cover, i.e., a black male presidential candidate, they will lash out against the feminine. During the last election cycle both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were satirically shown as leather clad dominatrixes by male Obama supporters and now Cimbalo has chosen to subject conservative women to cyber-rape. These images are both sides of the same psychological coin. Weak men are afraid of truly strong women (the dominatrix is the archetype) and rape is how weak men relate to women.

Liberal feminists hate conservative women because they are something that liberal women are not, i.e., independent thinkers and doers that have gotten where they are through hard work rather then on the coattails of some man. That is why liberal women hated Sarah Palin. She went from the school board to small town mayor to governor without the help of a man and while she managed her family. In addition most liberal women are actually quite submissive. They cluster around strong male characters and behave like they are in a harem. It is no coincidence that leftwing feminists have a soft spot for Islam.

I found this article to be a fine analysis of the situation and this list to be utterly repulsive. Not that I purchase the magazine but I can safely say that I never will. I have long felt that feminists, NOW and the like, have been counter productive to the needs of women, they have become a single issue camp that holds no credibility. These groups allowed Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Sara Palin and countless others to be assaulted and victimized simply because they do not share their political view. How can you hold yourself out as an organization advocating for the equal treatment of women when it’s only some women that you find worthy of defending or worthy of equal treatment? I laughed out loud when the story broke about how Obama paid women .70 cents on the dollar that he paid men doing the same job, and contrasted that to John McCain who actually paid women more than their male counterparts. A few days later NOW came out and endorsed Obama….shocking, no not really, after all the only issue that matters in the ability of a women to have an abortion. The sad reality is that all these “feminist groups” are nothing more than pro-abortion groups that prey on women to provide money and influence for their chosen cause. They are a joke and not worthy of being quoted or cited as advocates for women under any circumstances.

Also am I the only one that finds is puzzling just how vicious, low and incendiary that liberals can be about those who they do not agree? Funny how Conservatives are always labeled as exclusionary, and defamatory when the reality is the exact opposite. Guess this is why we are where we are in this country, the blind follow helplessly defending those who attack them, united against a common enemy that fights for the rights that they so willingly give away.

God bless us all, we are going to need it as it as we sit in this hand basket with only 48% of us knowing where we are going and the other 52% thinking that it’s a great way to travel.

I find the specific cases mentioned in the article infuriating. However, the general idea of liberal men somehow hate-raping conservative women is laughable.

All of the liberal men I know are pussies – no offense. Many of the conservative women I know have trained in self-defense techniques including firearms. Some have firearms carry permits. Lastly, many conservative women are married to conservative men like me – who will react decisively to any threat made against his wife. The scenario usually ends with a liberal wannabe man wounded or dead.

This is hateful, insecure losers fantasizing about something they will never be able to carry out. They are searching for a way to be superior to a woman like Sarah Palin but know they are inferior in every way which sparks the hate.

My mother survived many hardships and raised 4 children on her own without going on government assistance of any kind. She was a proud woman. She loved and respected her sex but did not bash men whatsoever, despite having good reason to. When I think of a feminist, I think of her. These radical leftist nutjobs who want to blame their own shortcomings on all men do womankind a great injustice.

Sorry if I have a hard time getting upset about imaginary violence. Aren’t there actual rapes and murders that deserve attention? Complaints about the first amendment are nothing new.

Personally, I think the “hate-f*” list is tasteless and counterproductive, but it is not hard to see the logic in imagining that conservative women would have to live with the consequences of their policies. When you support the right of rapists to bear children with their chosen victims, you should expect some backlash.

Peace.

DS

PS – CPelto apparently has changed his mind and now supports use of the DSM for political purposes. How charming. What was that about hypocrisy? Have fun playing with yourself.

It’s NOT about the poor, minorities, children, the environment, women, or any other cause ostensibly espoused by the left. It’s about raw power and it always has been. The left’s stated causes are merely paths to power. Understood in this light, the left is being perfectly consistent. We should not expect morality or principle (as we understand it) from the left. The left’s enemies are to be destroyed. Period.

….the general idea of liberal men somehow hate-raping conservative women is laughable.

All of the liberal men I know are pussies — Old Soldier

That’s why it’s called a ‘fantasy’. These d—less ‘men’, i.e., the EPA inspector in Ghostbusters, have no ‘power’ and yet that is their fantasy, to have the sort of rape-power they dream about over women. And since it would be offensive to their political ‘values’—such as they are—to rape one of their own, they fantasize about raping those that their own don’t care for.

In due time, their carefully constructed fantasy world will come apart. At which point they’ll turn on their own to fulfill their fantasies.

Compare Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter (as shrill as she can be) to Anna Quindlin, Eleanor Clift, and Co.

Compare the energetic and gorgeous women on FoxNews to the condesending, snarling women of CNN and MSNBC.

Maureen Dowd and Michelle Obama are good looking women, but bitter edge and biting sarcasm takes away some of the appeal.

Conservative women are hot.

I admit, this is a shallow post. But it is something I think about every time I turn on the television and compare not only ideologies, but the physical attributes of the people spouting those ideologies.

–Mariecurie (a moderate, “supply-side” Republican and pro-life feminist who oftentimes would much rather be friends with a man than another woman)

It’s shocking that it’s legal in the United States of America for any publisher to publish anything as hateful as 10 women I would like to hate FXXXX or whatever.

Isn’t this the Country that is leading the way in everything. Oops I forgot the Government is talking negogiating with Countries and regimes that regulary violate the rights of women, so this creature masquerading as a man is well with in the parameters.

“Liberal women are just jealous of conservative women, because conservative women are sharper, more attractive, and don’t feel the need to take themselves so seriously.”

That’s funny. I can’t recall ever encountering a liberal woman who was jealous of conservative women. I also have not yet seen any evidence that conservative women are sharper, more attractive or more easy going. If anything, the precise opposite would be true. In my experience, the average conservative woman is less educated, less fit, and less fun than the average liberal.

“Conservative women are hot.”

If you say so.

“I admit, this is a shallow post. But it is something I think about every time I turn on the television and compare not only ideologies, but the physical attributes of the people spouting those ideologies.”

This explains a lot about why the GOP does such a poor job when in power – a preoccupation with ideology and presentation, rather than policy and performance. Thanks for the insight. I do wonder what you mean by “Pro-life feminist”. That’s an oxymoron I hadn’t seen in print before.

There’s nothing new here. This is who these people are and have been since they were first spawned a hundred years ago as Progressives and eugenists. What would you expect from people who believe in, and practice, infanticide? What do you think the children of people who explained away Pol Pot a generation ago are capable of? Look at how these savages talk about Sarah Palin.
These are the people who produce, watch and star in pornographic films. It’s all they know.

I generally like your posts because you are a posterboy for what is wrong with Progressives. How simple would it be for you to just own up to the fact that the Playboy article was beyond the pale of civil discourse and never should have made it past the editors? I guarentee you that conservative men would have come to the defense of liberal women under this kind of attack.

Methinks you enjoyed the fantasy because you are the archetypical weak progressive male. Despite what you are going to tell me, I am sure women of either political stripe hold you in contempt.

“There’s nothing new here. This is who these people are and have been since they were first spawned a hundred years ago as Progressives and eugenists. What would you expect from people who believe in, and practice, infanticide? What do you think the children of people who explained away Pol Pot a generation ago are capable of? Look at how these savages talk about Sarah Palin.”

I read an interesting quote in one of those “Dear Abby” columns a long time ago, that bears repeating here: “Morals are what separate men from animals. If you’re having any problems in that respect, please consult your veterinarian.”

Playboy, the NOW crowd and the Left better get lined up at PetSmart’s animal clinic – fast.

#31 writes: “I do wonder what you mean by “Pro-life feminist”. That’s an oxymoron I hadn’t seen in print before.”

Please take a look the Website of Feminists for Life (http://www.feministsforlife.org/), an organization of which Palin herself is a member. As Mary Jackson (#3) writes above, it is a shame that “feminist” has now come to mean “left-wing feminist.”

#31 writes: “This explains a lot about why the GOP does such a poor job when in power – a preoccupation with ideology and presentation, rather than policy and performance.”

You need look no further than President Obama himself for an example of a leader preoccupied with ideology and presentation. What policies exactly has he created, either in his current role or when a junior senator (other than a spendulous package that can’t really qualify as “policy”)?

–Mariecurie (a conservative chick with a Ph.D., who tries not to take herself too seriously–thus the previous posting which I freely admitted as deliciously shallow )

I think the women on that list were pleased. I think they like being considered objects of physical desire. I’ll bet Ann Coulter is disappointed she wasn’t on the list. And it’s not just on the left that this political lust finds a home. It’s at the center of Republican fascination with Sarah Palin. If she looked like Kay Bailey Hutchison nobody would be talking about her. You people are trying way too hard to be offended.

After the way the progressive/liberal hatchet women treated Sarah Palin last year, who can doubt the existence of their flexible standards on any subject, even rape? Liberal comic Sandra Bernhard actually wished for Palin to be raped by a stereotypical gang of feral negroes should she ever step foot in NYC. I don’t recall any outrage from the feminazi’s over Bernhards vile “joke”, or any from the black leadership either.
Can you imagine if some media personality had wished for Michelle Obama’s similar treatment by a gang of white Klansmen? The gales of liberal outrage would’ve made the worst tornado ever recorded seem like a summer breeze by comparison!

“I generally like your posts because you are a posterboy for what is wrong with Progressives. How simple would it be for you to just own up to the fact that the Playboy article was beyond the pale of civil discourse and never should have made it past the editors? I guarentee you that conservative men would have come to the defense of liberal women under this kind of attack.”

Thanks for the encouragement. I don’t think I’m in a position to tell the editors of Playboy what to publish in their magazine. Would I be offended if liberal women were the subject? Yes, and to exactly the same degree. As I stated above “Personally, I think the “hate-f*” list is tasteless and counterproductive”. I believe in free speech, even when that speech is potentially offensive. So sue me.

“Methinks you enjoyed the fantasy because you are the archetypical weak progressive male. Despite what you are going to tell me, I am sure women of either political stripe hold you in contempt.”

I enjoy commenting on the overblown outrage over the ‘fantasy’. Your inability to understand my motivation or character is not a surprise. Women who would hold me in contempt for defending free speech are welcome to their opinion – but you don’t speak for women, just for your small-minded self. What you think about me reveals much more about your own concept of what it means to be male than it does about me.

And where is Malkin venomous? [...] I think the idea of a strong conservative woman, a conservative working mother and a conservative minority scares the living daylights out of them.

Michelle Malkin is reasoned, eloquent, and sometimes impassioned. I think her position sometimes goes beyond what reason demands, but it never goes beyond what reasons suggests. She is also a very attractive woman, more so in moving video than in still images. (Let me rephrase that: she is HOT. Also married with children entering adulthood. Her family should be very proud.)

And yes, Michelle Malkin scares the bejesus out of the Left, because she makes conservatism attractive and shows that attractive people can be conservative. I believe her good looks continue because she is a happy person, and that most of the folk on the Left appear prematurely aged because they are not. Her very existence rebuts who and what they are. The only answer they have is to hate her until everyone else hates her and they can pretend she doesn’t exist.

Hey David S: Hey college boy. Anonimity is a wonderful thing isn’t it? It allows an emasulcated white male like you to say things you would never say in public. It allows you to defend the indefensible. It allows a simpleton like yourself to feel like you belong to the progressive machine when in actuality you are about to be ejected.

Your party is turning more and more one of color and female. And assuming Sotomayor is correct you are a dolt. You will root for a person who is calling you an idiot just so you can feel like an enlightened white male.

White male progressives (like yourself) must act and think so far to the left without regard to morality, common courtesy, and logic in order to find a place at the progressive table.

I just hope you mom does not know you debased her and all women by defending the PB article.

Lastly you untied you brain from your fingers when you said, “I do wonder what you mean by “Pro-life feminist”. That’s an oxymoron I hadn’t seen in print before.” So you mean only women who support killing babies can be a feminist? Wow, that logic(?) is just short of being vacuous.

Free Hat, maybe feminists should actually walk the walk, and defend all women, even the ones they disagree with, instead of just the ones who share their politically correct views. Maybe then, women like Coulter, Malkin and other conservative women would take them seriously, instead of dismissing them as the Marxist foot soldiers they really are.

True to form are regular trolls come to defend Playboy’s little piece of woman-hate.

David, here is a fantasy for you. You, dressed in a French maid’s costume with full wig and makeup, kneeling before a leather clad dome and being forced to service one her male friends. Do you like that image? (With apologies to anybody I offend other then our lefty trolls.)

You tell me. I’m posting under my own name with a link to my personal blog. Come again?

“It allows an emasulcated white male like you to say things you would never say in public.”

You go ahead and keep telling yourself that. I’m happy to defend my position in any public forum – free speech is important to me.

“Your party is turning more and more one of color and female. And assuming Sotomayor is correct you are a dolt.”

I like the fact that women and minorities, as well as intelligent white males, are abandoning the GOP. The attacks on Sotomayor are baseless – her speech and her record are clear enough to anyone who can actually read. Accusations of racism are nothing more than mud slinging.

“I just hope you mom does not know you debased her and all women by defending the PB article.”

I’m sure my mom, and any other women who understand the Constitution, will agree with my position on the 1st amendment.

“Lastly you untied you brain from your fingers when you said, “I do wonder what you mean by “Pro-life feminist”. That’s an oxymoron I hadn’t seen in print before.” So you mean only women who support killing babies can be a feminist? Wow, that logic(?) is just short of being vacuous.”

It’s hard to imagine someone who believes in forced childbirth calling themselves a feminist. Giving rapists the right to choose the mother of their child is poor public policy, and offensive to women who have fought for the feminist cause. Feminists support women’s rights. Pro-life is advocating government control over women’s bodies. There is precious little room for overlap here.

Racism is bad unless its for a good cause;
Reagan’s deficits are bad, but Obama’s are good;
Conservation is for everyone except Al Gore and Barbara Streisand;
Spying on suspected terrorists is bad, but spying on Joe The Plumber is OK
Patriotism is OK now but it wasn’t before;
and…
Independent women support abortion on demand, public employee unions, restrictions on anti-women publications, sole custody for the primary care giver, condom distribution in grade 7 and “equal pay.” Opponents of these are ignorant white trash hair-curlered, fishwives to whom no one need show any respect or decency.

Why is it when a REAL woman, one who believes in LIFE, who wants a real man in her life, one who has her own mind and speaks it, does just that, suddenly she is a threat to be silenced? If not silenced, then attacked? My own daughter had similar things said to her on a very disgusting forum who claim to have science and ‘intellect’ on their side….but still had memebers suggesting a ‘good f-ing’ to either shut her up or bring her to her senses.
REAL women wouldn’t allow anyone to be attacked in that manner. Their ‘motherly instincts’ would kick in and they’d go for the throat of the attacker. I think the whole label of ‘feminist’ has gotten screwed up (pun intended).

Ah, David S and his profound insights and commentary on conservative women. In his world they are not attractive, to be pitied, are not intelligent, have no mind of their own, and follow their man at least three steps behind. For the conservative women who are on the public radar who do express themselves quite adequately and intelligently, progressives have no idea of how to confront them or even engage in an intelligent discussion so they do the only thing they know how to do. Attack, denigrate, dehumanize, and deligitimize their efforts and beliefs. You know, feel good stuff for progressives and liberals. A reinforcement of a delusional state of mind where entitlement and perceived intellectual superiority is absolutely necessary for their survival.

I surmise in his world, it is much different with the roles being reversed based on my experience dealing with a progressive couple. The last function I attended, liberal women dominated the conversation, agenda, and anything requiring a decision. On command, the women opened their purses, pockets, or fannypacks and handed the men their testicles in time for them to agree with what they were told to do. It must be very frustrating to know that probably the only useful function people like David S serve in a relationship with a liberal feminist counterpart is to be a sperm donor in person occasionally or in a cup as the preferred method. No wonder they defend sick fantasies like the one in Playboy.

DavidS: “I like the fact that women and minorities, as well as intelligent white males, are abandoning the GOP. The attacks on Sotomayor are baseless – her speech and her record are clear enough to anyone who can actually read. Accusations of racism are nothing more than mud slinging.”

Oh please. Labeling our criticizism of her comments as “atttacks” is denying our First Amendment rights. You wish to silence all criticism of anything progressive because your defense of it is weak. And you profess to be a protector of the First Amendment. See how you got all twisted up in your own hypocrisy.

“I’m sure my mom, and any other women who understand the Constitution, will agree with my position on the 1st amendment.”

You really think that debasing women is defensible? Then you and I are living on different worlds. And if feminists and you think that it is okay to debase “conservative” women as opposed to liberal women then you surely are twisted. Nice try.

“Feminists support women’s rights. Pro-life is advocating government control over women’s bodies. There is precious little room for overlap here.”

Did feminists supported Sarah Palin? Did they disabuse the press and comment on the trash she received during the election? No. So don’t insult us by telling us that feminism is about women’s rights. It is about abortion.

Pro-life is about life. (aren’t you glad you mom wasn’t a feminist) In fact we want the states to decide that abortion be legal or illegal. You and your twisted Orwellian logic actually have it all backwards. You advocate that the federal government support abortion by paying for it and considering it off limits to speech. Name one pro-life advocate who would force a raped women to have that child?

None of us want that or incest to be ruled out. On the other hand, you advocate that an underage girl, without the consent of her parents, and without giving the name of her assailant to go ahead and have an abortion.

#51. David S. writes: “It’s hard to imagine someone who believes in forced childbirth calling themselves a feminist. Giving rapists the right to choose the mother of their child is poor public policy, and offensive to women who have fought for the feminist cause. Feminists support women’s rights. Pro-life is advocating government control over women’s bodies. There is precious little room for overlap here.”

It’s hard to imagine that a true feminist would dismiss the rights of unborn women. Abortion is not a “women’s issue,” it is a “human rights” issue. If you believe that human life begins at conception (or with implantation and the first beating of a fetus’s heart), and if you are a logical person, then you must follow reason to its logical conclusion–that it doesn’t matter how that life was conceived, it is still a human life. Besides, give me a break, rape and incest account for only about 1% of unwanted pregnancies. Most abortions are a response to an “accident” or an unplanned inconvenience.

I don’t think Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned in this country, and, quite frankly, I think we have other fish to fry. However, I wish the pro-choice folks would have the guts to be honest. Abortion is destroying a life. If you are okay with that and want to privilege the mother’s choice over the fetus, that is your perogative and you are within the laws of this country. Just be honest about it and stop talking about “saving womens’ lives” or giving women “control over their own bodies.” As far as I know, no one resorts to a coat hanger any more, and women have access to plenty of low-cost and even free health care and birth control options.

I was ambivalent to the whole abortion debate until I had the procedure myself–no, not to terminate a live pregnancy but to extract a fetus that had died in the womb. There is unique emotional agony to realizing that a life has ended–and this agony is experienced by women who don’t want the pregancy too. So, let’s just be honest about what is and isn’t life, and let’s admit that there is something admirable about those who work towards defending life and/or helping young women make choices that will result in happier conclusions (i.e. adoption, or proper birth control in the first place).

Fighting hate (directed by liberal men towards conservative women) with hate (directed towards liberal, feminist women) is absurd, pointless, and nobody wins. That Playboy dreck shouldn’t have been published; it might be legal for it to be published, but it broke the limits of human decency. Blaming women for not standing up and calling Playboy out is like blaming the rape victim. There ARE liberal women blogging about this, outraged There ARE conservative women blogging about this, equally (if not even more) outraged. But there are women on both sides of the fence staying silent. No one is to blame in this debacle except some writer at Playboy and the editor who gave it a pass. And now, commenters here.

I’m a feminist and a liberal. (It should be noted these are two separate entities. There are conservative feminists, such as the authors of the site Smart Girl Politics.) According to the people here I am self-centered and interested in the destruction of family and men (#7), ugly and jealous (#27), ride the coattails of men (#16), not a REAL woman as well as lacking in motherly instincts (#58), and should just shut up (#4). That’s just a few of the things directed towards feminists in the comments.

(By the way, I’m college educated, got a degree in mathematics with a minor in political science, and graduated with honors. I am married to a man who earns more than I do, is his own wonderful person, and was a self-declared feminist before I met him.)

There are plenty of attractive and intelligent conservative women – apparently you didn’t see the post (#27) I was responding to. Certainly this was a crude way for Playboy to address the issue of conservatism – but it is not “beyond the pale” as some would claim. The verbiage deployed against Sotomayor has been far more harmful. Exploring the consequences of Pro-life policies on the victims of rape is an appropriate topic for discussion that relates directly to the ideology of the women in question and their response to rape in society.

Your characterization of a progressive couple is just more evidence of your frustration with those “liberal feminists” who believe in the constitution. I don’t defend jerryofva’s “sick fantasies”, but I defend his right to fantasize. I likewise defend your right to fantasize about the sexual escapades of your fellow citizens. If you need to ponder the sexual proclivities of progressives to get off, go for it. Just remember that my sex life ain’t the issue here.

Feminists owe no apology for ignoring this article and the feigned outrage that was predictable in the article’s wake.

David S.:
‘When you support the right of rapists to bear children with their chosen victims, you should expect some backlash.’

The vast majority of conservatives, and the platform of the Republican party, have always allowed exceptions for rape. So this comment is only major BS, even for you.
Also, bonus question: why when discussing abortion do liberals neglect to mention that there are two parties involved?

I think the women on that list were pleased. I think they like being considered objects of physical desire. I’ll bet Ann Coulter is disappointed she wasn’t on the list. And it’s not just on the left that this political lust finds a home. It’s at the center of Republican fascination with Sarah Palin. If she looked like Kay Bailey Hutchison nobody would be talking about her. You people are trying way too hard to be offended.

Sheesh, you don’t get it. Being on a list of man wanting to do harm to you is not flattering. He could’ve gotten his point across better had he made a list of the top 10 beautiful conservative women. They would not have been offended by this. Now, the Nazi-feminist would have!!

BettyBlue: “Free Hat, maybe feminists should actually walk the walk, and defend all women, even the ones they disagree with, instead of just the ones who share their politically correct views. Maybe then, women like Coulter, Malkin and other conservative women would take them seriously, instead of dismissing them as the Marxist foot soldiers they really are.”

Okay, I’ll make you a deal: when conservatives stop murdering liberals with whom they disagree, then perhaps liberals might consider coming to the defense of conservatives with whom they disagree.

The feminist agenda is akin to the kid in the store with his parent(s) begging him/her/them to buy a toy. It’s not about the toy; the toy will be forgotten probably within hours, if not sooner. It’s about exercising control, being in charge, and foisting one’s beliefs upon others.
Feminists don’t give a darn about women; they only care about promoting abortion, ridiculing women who actually have & raise their children (think Sarah Palin), and turning real men (think horsepower, muscle, tools and poker) into girlie-men.

Ok. This has gone a little too far. Both the article and some of the responses are over the top. Personally, I’d be very pleased if I made a list of guys that liberal women want to hate f***. I would consider it flattering to be included on such a list. Do I agree with Playboy publishing such crap? No. But I do think that the article demonstrates the fact that Playboy is extremely liberal and has good taste (concerning the beauty of women ONLY.)

I just don’t buy that it’s “cyber rape.” That seems ridiculous to me. They never advocated rape of any sort. It was just a list of conservative women who are beautiful and intelligent whom they despise because of their conservatism.

Many may not agree with this opinion, but it rings true to me.

So, here’s what needs to happen: A good decent conservative guy needs to come up with a list of liberal women that he would “Hate TO F…” I can think of a few just off the top of my head that…well…NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS IF I WAS THE LAST HUMAN WHO PRODUCED SPERM!!! (Ever hear of “scared turtle syndrome”?)

I can think of a few categories: 1: Not after 4 Viagra and two hours of porn; 2: There ain’t enough beer in the whole world; 3: (at the drive-thru liquor window) Can you put two bags on that fifth, mister? (one for my head and one to throw up in if it slips off)…

Also, the feminist movement has been hijacked (and permanently damaged) by “butch” lesbians in recent times. I would guess that most lesbians are liberals (personal experience here). Until some “real women” who love men can take back feminism from the lesbians, it’s just another gay advocacy group hellbent on pushing their own agenda.

Is there some particular reason that you are in denial about the most basic factual matters?

“The [GOP Platform] does not include exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of pregnant women” – Medical News Today

Tell me again that this is “major BS”? The GOP is on the record supporting a complete, unconditional ban on abortion – no exceptions. Even you don’t support that patently extreme position – but somehow you pretend that the party is much more moderate than the platform it has adopted.

If the vast majority of conservatives support exceptions for rape, maybe they should let the GOP know.

“How simple would it be for you to just own up to the fact that the Playboy article was beyond the pale of civil discourse and never should have made it past the editors?”

Exactly. And maybe David can explain how rape equals conservative women living with the consequences of their policies? Conservative women have forged policies legalizing and encouraging rape?? Obviously, he can’t defend such a position, so he shifts the argument to be about abortion. David, for all your simpering liberalism and your “peace” signoffs, you’re a hateful creep.

Oh, yeah, I’ve just seen piles of liberal bodies, heaped on the sidewalk outside my house! Bullets ring out, all day long, because the conservatives on my block are killing everybody they suspect of having liberal tendencies! Better peel that Obama sticker off your car before it’s too late!

I’m cowering in the bath tub, to protect myself from the gun fire! I dread the knock on my door, as THEY come looking for me, to question me! AIEEEEEEE, run for the hills! THE CONSERVATIVES ARE COMING! Declare a state of national emergency! Send all Republicans to the Gulag! Beg Cuba and North Korea for aid! SAAAAAVE US FROM CONSERVATIVES!

A “good, decent conservative guy” wouldn’t do that. Good, decent men, conservative or not, don’t make lists of women they want to “hate f****k.” I hope no Conservative man comes up with such a list. If he did, I’d condemn him as strongly as I do Playboy.

I normally watch Bonnie Erbe’s show (To The Contrary) on PBS on Sunday. I watch for two reasons: 1: To watch Amanda Carpenter absolutely destroy liberalism and listen to what she has to say (she’s brilliant) and to watch and listen to what the black chick (I forget her name but she’s really smart and has pretty eyes (and is a conservative)) has to say.

So last Sunday when I watched it, not a word escaped Ms. Erbe’s mouth about this controversy. (It was studiously avoided.)

To follow up on my previous post: There was a feminist woman (who was more butch than most lesbians (hell she probably shaves more frequently than I do)) on the show sitting next to the black representative woman (Eleanor Holmes Norton). It was really interesting to watch the absolute disgust on Mrs. Norton’s face. She leaned away from the other woman the whole show! It was at least funny considering that Eleanor Holmes Norton is a gushing liberal. Also it’s an all-woman show so it just seems tawdry that this whole controversy would be excluded from discussion considering the publicity it has gotten and considering the fact that Ms. Erbe is now firmly lodged in the center of it.

P.S. I consider myself a guy who is a feminist at heart-meaning that I stongly support women’s rights to be treated as equals at all times and in all circumstances.

I haven’t read the article, never will. I have an issue with the word hate used with f**k. It screams rape. It’s next to impossible to have a fun f**k with someone you hate and it is impossible to make love to someone you hate.

My son beat up one of his friends for calling me a MILF. I’ll admit, I was flattered but if he would’ve called me a MILHF (see the H), I would’ve been scared of him. Hate is a strong word.

I don’t agree with censorship of any kind. I believe fully in the free market. Playboy is dying and grasping at straws. I wonder if there would be an outcry from the left though, if one of these women was raped after a crazy man read it. We all know the answer…they wouldn’t be.

Let the dinosaur die or slowly disappear to the back shelves in a shady bookstore.

“… maybe David can explain how rape equals conservative women living with the consequences of their policies? Conservative women have forged policies legalizing and encouraging rape??”

The GOP platform includes a complete ban on abortion. Even in cases of rape. Did you not read the article?

“…consider what was said about Mary Katherine Ham:

You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant. Karma’s a b****, isn’t it?

Implying that she wouldn’t want a baby resulting from rape, but because of her belief system, she’d have the child. Of course, she would deserve this treatment and fate, because Ham is pro-life. Carrying the baby would be karmic retribution for holding her disagreeable belief.”

Playboy’s article was a crude and rude way to express this sentiment – but given the homicidal terrorism against abortion providers, not out of bounds in my opinion. I don’t like the idea that someone should have to bear a child if they become pregnant by their rapist – but that is a plank in the GOP platform, and a position these women support. Any thought experiment about such scenarios should include an attempt to “put yourself in their shoes”, so to speak. The GOP platform supports enshrining the right of rapists to choose the mother of their children in the Constitution.

“Obviously, he can’t defend such a position, so he shifts the argument to be about abortion. David, for all your simpering liberalism and your “peace” signoffs, you’re a hateful creep.”

The Playboy article specifically referenced abortion and the Pro-life opposition – and to be fair to the editors at Playboy, they probably felt that the distinction between “rape” and “hate f***” would be obvious enough to their audience. Melissa’s article addresses rape and the children of rape, as well as abortion. I can’t be accused of trying to shift the argument. This is the argument.

If you consider it hateful to support human rights for women, or the freedom to express opinions on the topic, that’s your cross to bear. I consider forcing women to bear the children of their rapists to be hateful. I don’t advocate “hate f*ing”, but I think it is a less onerous thing than the government asserting ownership of women’s reproductive organs. The distinction between a “hate f*” and a rape is also important, and completely lost here.

Oh well, accuracy is probably too much to ask when folks are busy pretending to be outraged.

Hey DavidS: Here is the platform. Makes no mention of NOT allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest or mother’s health.

Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value.

Kind of makes you look stupid, which only proves Sotomayor’s point, I guess.

You’re incorrect in your assumptions concerning my post. First of all, that part was tongue-in-cheek (in case you didn’t get it). Secondly, the ONLY reason anyone should come up with a list of liberal gals that he’d “Hate TO F***” is to let those liberal women feel what it’s like to be victimized like that. That sort of a thing could possibly bring this victimization to the attention of more Americans. And it is victimization-but it’s not cyber rape! A little bit of “tit for tat” and retaliation might just get a few of the non-lesbian liberal feminists worked up enough to make a real issue out of this.

Here’s the thing, too: I haven’t made up such a list nor do I advocate such a thing (I was being facetious earlier). But I easily could. And I AM a decent, moderate, conservative and nice guy for not doing so (among other things).

Also, I visit Michelle Malkin’s website daily to see what she has to say sbout lots of issues. She doesn’t even have a picture of herself on the site (in case you were wondering). I go there for the same reason I come to PJM: to be informed!

I was not puzzled at all by the logic of playboy publishing this article and the subsequent silence of the feminists.

1. Playboy has always done whatever made them money and abused whoever to get it done.
2. The feminists have never actually cared about individual women, only those who fit “the group” that was useful to them at any given time. (And nobody ever had to tell me that. I knew that after the first press conference they held back in the 70′s or whenever it was. This is not complicated. They stink. Always have.)
3. The feminists did not anticipate that there would be any outcry, otherwise they would have had the cameras rolling at the moment the article was posted.

I really have trouble believing that anyone is seriously surprised by the silence of the feminists here.

If you really are surprised, I truly have to ask, “Why? If you had other expectations, what are they based on? What?”

Neither have I. I don’t even know who’s on their list (excepting MM and AC). I would like to read the article, though. But for only one reason: To see if it actually was hateful or to see if it was a satirical article that actually was celebrating the beauty of the women therein.

Ok. The article never mentions the word “Rape”. If it did, I’d be as up-in-arms as you! ANYONE who advocates rape is an evil MOTHERF*****! But I just don’t believe that Playboy would ever (as much as they purport to love women) advocate rape.

You wrote: “My son beat up one of his friends for calling me a MILF.” Good for you and your son! I have a bit of personal experience with such an issue. My Mom won a couple of beauty pageants when she was a young lady. And she was and is a lady and was and is beautiful. When I was a young man, some of my friends (during pubescence) relayed to me that they “wanted” my mother. I was a short, skinny kid (smaller than my friends, who were older than me at the time) or else I would have beaten the ever-loving dogsnot out of them. A coward? Yep. Kudos to your son (and to you if you didn’t punish him for it).

As to your last point: This whole episode brought some publicity to Playboy. That may have been the whole point of the article. Fortunately, it’s been, without doubt, BAD publicity. I would bet that with the rise of the internet and easy-to-access porn that they’re feeling the heat and revenues are dropping. It almost surprises me that the title of the article wasn’t, “Conservative Sluts We’d Like to F*** to Submission.”

“The [GOP Platform] does not include exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of pregnant women” – Medical News Today

Do all democrats support and adhere to all the DNC party platform positions?

I believe there are plenty of conservatives who may not agree with abortion, but since its the law, will fight and honor the right. Actually I have yet to know a woman who wasn’t anti-abortion personally, altho many/most are also pro choice. (whether dem or repub). But if we were to say they were pro-partial birth abortion and that was the only choice – all honest woman that I’ve ever met would have to say they’re anti-abortion.

David S is apparently OK with rape scenarios as long as they involve Conservative women. Make a mental note of this the next time you want to reply to one of his inane comments.

In David S’s world killing full-term babies is OK and apparently so is rape (as long as it’s not a woman with hairy armpits, Birkenstocks and a tattoo of a swastika on her forearm). Nice to pick and choose whom to which your “PEACE” to.

Your life must truly suck David for you to hate women and children so much.

“we assert … that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

There is no qualification here. No exceptions provided for. You may think it makes me look stupid, but I’m pointing out the obvious here – the GOP platform does not address exceptions because the GOP platform supports a total ban on abortion. This is not the first time, and I am not the first to point this out.

Is it really that hard to come to terms with the ultimate implications?

90. David S wrote, “The distinction between a “hate f*” and a rape is also important, and completely lost here.” And also, “Playboy’s article was a crude and rude way to express this sentiment…”

I actually agree with dude this time. It should be seen as flattering, not hateful. They never advocated rape!

93. Michael wrote, “Some people seem to be confused here. “hate f**k” is just a poor euphanism [sic] for rape. Period.”

I disagree. It’s not the same thing. The article was tongue-in-cheek with regard to “hate.” It wasn’t proposing that liberal men to try to rape these ladies (note: ladies). It would be a “justified homicide” if any liberal man even attempted such nonsense against any of these gals! (I bet they all pack heat) (no pun intended)

John, it’s a bad idea, whether it’d intended tongue-in-cheek, to make liberal women feel that sort of victimization (is this “spread the victimization around” week?), whatever the reason; and I certainly hope nobody takes up that suggestion, whether to be funny, or because they think they’re proving some kind of point by doing so.

I read Michelle’s blog a lot. I don’t see what her picture, or lack thereof, has to do with any of this.

My son wasn’t punished. We laughed about it. I’ve never had to worry about another one of his friends disrespecting again.

The only thing me and you disagree on is whether or not a hate F**k is rape. As a woman, I think it’s the same and as a man you don’t. I agree to disagree. I really don’t think any harm will come to these women because of this article. And did any of us really expect NOW to come to their defense? I’m proud of the men that have defended them on the internet and elsewhere. As this article points out, many conservative men came to their defense. That’s what I like about conservative men…in my experience, they treat ladies like ladies…heck most of them treat all women like ladies. Most liberal men are crude and rude. There are some exceptions, I’m sure.

Let me just say that your attempt to explain my beliefs is pathetic. You obviously didn’t notice that I would be equally offended whether the subject was Liberal or Conservative women – but the article’s point about the Pro-life position does not have a parallel on the liberal side.

In my world, women have the right to privacy in their own bodies. I have in no way defended rape, nor would I do so. The party defending rape is known as the GOP – it provides for male rapists’ reproductive rights at the expense of women.

I believe all women deserve the opportunity to make a choice that brings them peace.

“Your life must truly suck David for you to hate women and children so much.”

I consider forcing women to bear the children of their rapists to be hateful. If you believe this means I hate women and children, so be it. We will need to agree to disagree on this issue.

How ’bout this then, bro: If a woman chooses to have an elective abortion of a viable and healthy (no severe birth defects/not a rape baby/mother won’t die during birth, etc.) human being that is presently resident within her body, allow her to have that choice; BUT ONLY ONCE. With the condition that she must be permanently sterilized during that abortion and therefore will never get pregnant and have the “right” or ability to preventatively kill another human being ever again.

Would that be OK?

It sort of quells both arguments: 1: That a woman has the right to choose homicide for her baby and 2: That a woman who chooses to kill a baby has a right to get pregnant with (and possibly murder) another one.

I apologize if anyone has been offended by the above submission (except David S.).

A lot of the liberal feminist bloggers you mention are really young, and notoriously stupid, even in liberal feminist circles. All of them were Obama supporters and turned their backs on Hillary Clinton during the Democratic campaign as well. There are a lot of liberal feminists who defended Malkin, etc. about this list – namely, The New Agenda, numerous PUMA groups, other former Hillary Clinton supporters who have given up on third wave, liberal feminism. Malkin, Palin, and many of the other conservative women attacked by liberal men, will find their strongest allies in former Clinton supporters.

106. Ms. Attitude: “That’s what I like about conservative men…in my experience, they treat ladies like ladies…heck most of them treat all women like ladies.”

Yeah, right, except for when they don’t agree with them. Then women become “hags” like Nancy Pelosi (Limbaugh) or “bitches” like Hillary Clinton (Ted Nugent) or “dogs” like Chelsea Clinton (Limbaugh again). And don’t even being to defend the kind of rhetoric that has appeared on this site regarding the FLOTUS; it’s been truly pathetic and disgusting.

But who knows, maybe having men denigrate you with sexist slurs because they don’t like your attitude is, in your experience, being treated like a lady. It surely would explain a great deal.

It seems that this whole controversy is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of “hate-f6%^&”. I’ve also heard it put as “grudge=F*&^%” and it has always been unisex. Women are just as capable–its usually used to denote one last sexual experience in which all one’s antagonism towards that person is given toward a healthy sexual output. Its actually the complete opposite of rape.

105. BettyBlueBalls: Oops, must have misspelled it… A Freudian slip… Just a personal subliminal pet peeve. Please take no offense.

Anyoldhow, you wrote, “…whether it’d [sic{I guess}] intended tongue-in-cheek…I certainly hope nobody takes up that suggestion, whether to be funny, or because they think they’re proving some kind of point by doing so.”

I must disagree by using the following little old saying, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Dad always told me to give as good as you got. A little bit of nastiness might just do some good. You know, turn their hate back upon them a little.

I think I’mA start myself a blog and place this as my first post: “10 Liberal Butch Lesbians Who Couldn’t Get Raped By A Horny Black Man If They Tried In The Bathroom At A Titty Bar During Intermission.”

Further,: “The only thing me and you disagree on is whether or not a hate F**k is rape.” If they had said, “hate rape” which is a double negative (and an oxymoron, too (one can’t rape somebody he loves)) then you would be correct. Ok. What woman (other than a determined lesbian) doesn’t want to be desired by men? You yourself implied that you- when told of your son’s friend’s (who called you a “MILF”) attraction for you-wish to be admired by the opposite sex. Am I reading too much into this? Is it just human nature to be desired (normally at least) by the opposite sex? (And I hope that your son kicked the little perv “in the junk”!)

A hatef**k is just as often perpetrated by females. There are no rape connotations.

I have wondered due to your previous articles whether you could posibly be more clueless. Clearly that answer is yes, because I don’t think you’re bright enough to have deliberately misframed this to stir up the drooling neanderthal masses (see post #19 for an illustration.)

Ok, explain to me how having sex with someone you hate (and who would most likely not want to have sex with someone that hates them) come out as anything except rape? Especially when it is something you want to do TO someone and not necesarily WITH someone.

The whole supposition that someone believes that it is all just clean fun is more than a little disturbing.

“David S: Do tell, what ARE the “ultimate implications” of no more abortions.”

Countless women dying for the religious satisfaction of conservatives, from lack of abortions, or lack of safe abortions, when medically necessary.

“Let me sum up your point so you don’t have to tap dance around it anymore….Liberals are okay with killing babies but not harming terrorists.”

Again, you do a poor job of encapsulating the core principle here. There is a difference between a baby and a fetus. A fetus is, by law, not a citizen, and not an independent entity – it can pose a grave danger to the woman carrying it, and therefore is fundamentally different from a baby. There is a difference between torturing terrorists and working to defeat terrorists. If harming terrorists is your goal, please note: They blow themselves up as a recruiting tool – harming them is not the answer.

The solution in both cases has to do with free will. If you want to reduce abortion, convince your fellow human beings to exercise their free will in accordance with your principles – there is no other way to accomplish your task. The choice does not disappear just because the law changes. Likewise terrorists. You can make whatever laws you want, but unless people are convinced that terrorism is against their interests, terrorism will continue to find support. People will choose to do what they want to do – the task is to win hearts and minds so that people will select the path of brotherhood – not to blow them all up and let God sort them out.

117. wardjhwrote, “Two comments: 1) Perhaps liberals are so pro abortion because they know that they would make lousy parents. Or something deep inside tells them their DNA should not continue?

2) Perhaps they are so pro abortion because they reproduce by fission like most other lower life forms.”

First, would that qualify as “Intellectual Darwinism”?

Second, Most lower life forms can’t decide whether their offspring live or die…

114. Chuck Pelto:….that’s ONLY if someone is a masochist. If they are not a masochist, it’s going to be a ‘rape’. Don’t you think?

Nope. Here’s why: A person can either be raped or not. A person is either willing or not. (And also, can a masochist be raped?) There’s no midddle ground. They either are raped or not. Playboy (gag, spit) never advocated rape of anyone. I feel that they were admiring exceedingly beautiful women with a horrendously jaundiced eye.

So long as dunces –er uh I mean conservative men– continue to _mindlessly_, _instinctually_ defend females, the females will continue to snowball society down the path of more and more liberalism. Ie continue to damage people and society through tantrum.

(The females are not sentient enough to understand or care that they are doing that. Like animals they –like most– only understand consequence in real time not potential. Ergo… let them go.)

======
Now if you say “it aint about that. It is about liberal hypocrisy.” Well of course, you are right.

118. Hot Lunch wrote, “It seems that this whole controversy is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of “hate-f6%^&”. I’ve also heard it put as “grudge=F*&^%” and it has always been unisex. Women are just as capable–its usually used to denote one last sexual experience in which all one’s antagonism towards that person is given toward a healthy sexual…

Grudge and hate aren’t the same thing. One time I “grudge f……” my girlfriend. I didn’t hate her; I just had a grudge against her (she had slept with somebody else and I had found it out). She had come back to me and I just wanted to impress her or convince her, I guess. There’s a difference!

DavidS: I too am sorry I’ve gone astray from the topic. But I do want to address the topic of abortion one last time.

The GOP platform is just that a platform. It is malleable. I have yet to see or hear anyone expressely say or write that there are no exceptions to the platform. The Dem party stands for affirmative action but yet allows for some white males to be hired, or elected right? The Dem party stands for unconditional abortions including late-term abortions but some Dems disagree with it, right?

So to declare that just because exceptions to abortion are not enumerated in the platform and to say that the GOP would not consider them is to submit to hyperbole and fallaciousness.

But like your defense of the PB article, I can understand why you must go to such extremes.

I love the rampant hypocrisy all over this thread. Liberal women/feminists hate women, yet one commentator goes off on Hillary Clinton’s dowdiness and others make comments about the more aesthetically appealing make-up of conservative women than liberal women? Liberalism is a “mental illness”? I’m not saying liberal blogs are any better. But if you claim superiority, try at least to provide a smidgen of empirical evidence that you deserve the claim.

“The Dem party stands for affirmative action but yet allows for some white males to be hired, or elected right? The Dem party stands for unconditional abortions including late-term abortions but some Dems disagree with it, right?”

The beauty of Affirmative Action is that in the long run, it is to everyone’s benefit. In the not too distant future, white males will be just another minority – and AA will be more clearly seen as the egalitarian tool it is designed to be.

The beauty of the Democrats position on choice is that the Democrats who don’t want, like or need abortions are free not to have them – and those who are in need can get them when they need them.

“So to declare that just because exceptions to abortion are not enumerated in the platform and to say that the GOP would not consider them is to submit to hyperbole and fallaciousness.”

I happen to believe that choice is important. The GOP platform is pretty clear, and the comments of legislators and spokespeople are pretty clear, too. If the GOP considered the life of the mother, or her health, or cases of rape, to be important, there would be some caveat in the platform. There is none. That is on purpose.

“But like your defense of the PB article, I can understand why you must go to such extremes.”

Defending the speech we don’t like is even more important than defending the speech that we do like. That’s America 101.

You’re a plant by PJM Media so as to inflame all of the people who’ve got it right. You know, keep the conversation going. The reason I know this is that you have never been correct nor have you ever propositioned anything reasonable in the time that I’ve been priveleged enough to read and comment on PJM. You’re the antithesis of reason.

….you say someone who doesn’t want to be ‘hate f**ked’ is ‘asking for it’ when they get it?

That’s some kinda convoluted ‘logic’ there, Jon.

I suspect that a woman who doesn’t care to be ‘hate f**ked’ wouldn’t care to take someone who would do that to her to bed. The only scenario I see would be where the perp would be lying through their teeth with a big grin. [Note: And, they'd probably be HIV+ too boot. Now THERE'S a 'gift' that keeps on giving.]

So the only women I can conceive of who would want to be ‘hate f**ked’ would be masochists.

SERIOUSLY….

….would you go to bed with someone you hated? Or rather who hated YOU? You might wake up like Mr. Bobbitt in the morning. Or like Mr. Winkler, with your insides splattered all over the opposite wall.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Never lie down with a woman who has more troubles than you.]

David S: Yet more insanity and no reality. You actually think there’s a difference between a baby and a fetus because THE LAW SAYS SO? What the hell? You do realize that you are allowed to think outside of the liberal loonie talking points right? A fetus passing through the birth canal magically turns into a baby? What was it a minute before birth? A blob of cells? Yeah, and unicorns fart out money for the US Treasure. Both truths in the liberal world apparently.

You’ve made up your own truths to pacify your conscious. So be it. Don’t suddenly try and hide behind the law when at the same time you’re supporting an administration that is currently dismantling the Constitution. Google “Dismantling the Constitution” and see who’s picture turns up.

I know if we wait long enough, Dear Leader Obama will appoint a Constitution Czar to redo that pesky Constitution. Apparently it does nothing but get in his way.

Laugh if you will but he, in his infinite Chicago thug wisdom actually appointed a “Great Lakes Czar”. Ah…we are witnessing a genius at work. We should bask in his glory.

Keep up the fight though David S. I admire your gumption in the face of what must be some pretty disheartening truths about The One you elected.

“You actually think there’s a difference between a baby and a fetus because THE LAW SAYS SO? What the hell?”

No, I actually think there’s a difference because a baby is not a danger to the mother – a fetus very well might be.

“A fetus passing through the birth canal magically turns into a baby?”

A fetus that has passed through the birth canal is no longer a danger to the mother – and yes, it “magically turns into a baby”, just like it magically becomes a full-fledged human being when the sperm meets the egg.

“I admire your gumption in the face of what must be some pretty disheartening truths about The One you elected.”

I knew he would be a little too conservative for my tastes his first term, especially through the first few months while trying to get major legislation passed. I’m sure he’ll regain his liberal footing in his second term. The man knows what he’s doing, which is more than could be said for a lot of the folks getting bailed out.

“Yeah, right, except for when they don’t agree with them. Then women become “hags” like Nancy Pelosi (Limbaugh) or “bitches” like Hillary Clinton (Ted Nugent) or “dogs” like Chelsea Clinton (Limbaugh again).”

Limbaugh’s little stunt re: Chelsea Clinton is one of the reasons I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh. Subjecting a child to hateful ridicule because you dislike her parents’ politics is way over the line.

Please, Sir (Mr. Peltholio) defer yourself from obfuscating my positions in the observance of your own morals. I propose hereby to do the same decency to yourself. However, if you deem that it is in your interest to strawman me or otherwise misrepresent my arguments I will consider it my solemn duty to refute your arguments with which I disagree with further strawman arguments which wil misrepresent you to the maximum degree and which you will find distasteful.

If I represent your arguments truthfully, you should do the same for mine, right? It’s only decent…

Just one problem: When some moron says, “The beauty of Affirmative Action is that in the long run, it is to everyone’s benefit. In the not too distant future, white males will be just another minority – and AA will be more clearly seen as the egalitarian tool it is designed to be”, it’s only a hop, skip and jump to JUDEN FREI.

Hey! I’ve been ignored by David S.! I only wonder if he’s too tired of being wrong or if he doesn’t have a good answer to my deep question: “How ’bout this then, bro: If a woman chooses to have an elective abortion of a viable and healthy (no severe birth defects/not a rape baby/mother won’t die during birth, etc.) human being that is presently resident within her body, allow her to have that choice; BUT ONLY ONCE. With the condition that she must be permanently sterilized during that abortion and therefore will never get pregnant and have the “right” or ability to preventatively kill another human being ever again.

142. Ed Wallis: Quick Quick let’s all hop a plane (not an AirFrance 330 one) and beam off to Chile! NO! Id rather fight it out here against idiots! As President [spit] Obama said, “Get in their face!” [spit]

Sounds to me like more of the same generic leftover 60′s culture war misogynistic anti-pill stupidity trying to sadly mount the saddle again. I’ll bet you think women who wear short skirts are just asking for it, too.

I’m laughing at all of you men who say that women freely participate in a hate f**k at the end of a relationship or a grudge f**k…the ones that are saying this really don’t know women. There’s no hate involved in the last fling…or are you dating men?

Just one problem: When some moron says, “The beauty of Affirmative Action is that in the long run, it is to everyone’s benefit. In the not too distant future, white males will be just another minority – and AA will be more clearly seen as the egalitarian tool it is designed to be”, it’s only a hop, skip and jump to JUDEN FREI.

In some universe that succession of events make some kind of sense; I’m just glad that you live there, not me.

You know how a woman hate f**ks you? It would be with someone she has been intimate with, someone she loved and he did her wrong. she’ll get him all worked up, you know what I mean, and then laugh and leave! So, it’s really not a f**k now is it?

“And yes, Michelle Malkin scares the bejesus out of the Left, because she makes conservatism attractive and shows that attractive people can be conservative.”

You’ve got it backwards. MM doesn’t scare me, you do! I’ve never wondered whether physical attraction had anything to do with one’s political orientation. Is this really the kind of reasoning you’re bringing to bear on issues affecting me and my family? Are there more of you? That’s what’s freakin frightening, not some empty-headed blogger.

She’s hot, though I’ll give you that. Now that would be some grudge-f*&^^!

Some people have a very sad view of sex here. No suprise I suppose in this day and age.

You can get off the “threat to the mother” thing too. 98% of abortions have nothing to do with mother’s health issues. It is convenience. Where there is a choice between mother’s life and the unborn’s then doctors have and still can make those decisions.

And we are taking the next step now in that babies can be dropped off at hospitals if the mother isn’t interested any more. Better than being left in a dumpster or toilet. Not surprising with the attitude about love, sex and babies.

154. Ms. Attitude: 119. HonestJon: You took part of my post and answered Betty with it.

A partial (and impartial) oops. I apoligize, ma’am if I erroniously implicated you in my irreverent diatribe without proper need. I do hereby regret and apologize for the inconsistency, ma’am. And it’s only an oops! My apologies!

152. G Alston: #146 — With the condition that she must be permanently sterilized…

I didn’t aks you… I aksed DavidS.

It’s (he’s I guess) the one who has baby-murdering liberalism on his mind. I’ll make my way to your nonsensical, easily-refutable arguments (if they can be fashioned so) in my own good time. And if I don’t have time, I’ll bet that Chuck Peltoholio will take up for my position!

“The reason that hate f**k with a stranger is rape is because there isn’t a relationship of any sort. Therefore, the man would be forcing himself on the woman.”

No argument there. But we’re not talking about rape. We’re talking about some fantasy concocted by some nimrod from Playboy. I for one find Mary Katharine Ham quite attractive. I can’t stand her politics sometimes but I don’t hate her. And i certainly would not rape her. Again, this guy engaged in invective satire. It’s very probable he knew he’d strike a nerve with some folks. Seems like he did.

So long as dunces –er uh I mean conservative men– continue to _mindlessly_, _instinctually_ defend females, the females will continue to snowball society down the path of more and more liberalism. Ie continue to damage people and society through tantrum.

(The females are not sentient enough to understand or care that they are doing that. Like animals they –like most– only understand consequence in real time not potential. Ergo… let them go.)

======
Now if you say “it aint about that. It is about liberal hypocrisy.” Well of course, you are right.

David S #131 wrote, “The beauty of Affirmative Action is that in the long run, it is to everyone’s benefit. In the not too distant future, white males will be just another minority – and AA will be more clearly seen as the egalitarian tool it is designed to be.”

Fascinating.

So, the “beauty” of Affirmative Action” is that it will stop benefitting/protecting “minorities” as soon as “whites” become a minority.

So, the “beauty” of Affirmative Action” is that it will stop benefiting/protecting “minorities” as soon as “whites” become a minority.

When Riyadh freezes over. VDH had a column a few days ago about what a game of Calvinball AA has become, where, for example, half-Hispanics with a Hispanic father are treated preferentially to half-Hispanics with a Hispanic mother (because the surname makes them more authentic).

The more likely scenario is that as whites approach 50% of the population, discrimination against them will step up until it causes a migration to the Southeast and another Civil War. This time the South will win. The rag-tag mix of race pimps, political opportunists, and hippies left over will descend into third-world status. Any minorities with their sh** together will have already moved to the South, where racial discrimination for any reason will be unconstitutional.

BTW, that comment implies that AA will be necessary because the non-white majority will be so racist as to require the government to intervene on behalf of whites. Mr. Troll has said, in essence, that minorities are, and will continue to be, racist.

No, the “beauty” of Affirmative Action is that it will benefit everyone equally in the long run.

This gets the ‘WTF???’ award for the week. In the long run, we benefit equally by by some bureaucrat taking from this pile and putting in that pile?

This confirms a theory that I’ve had for a while. I’ve always known that normal people understand that the government is a zero-sum game, and the private sector is a positive-sum game. I’ve long believed that left-wing mutants believe that the private sector is a negative-sum game. What’s breathtaking about this is that this mutant has said, in so many words, that the government is a positive-sum game!

Let’s face the truth…Playboy and Letterman have pretty much lost their popularity and need “shock jock” antics appealing to the immature and less intelligent members of society to prop up their ratings. These poor unfortunates don’t even realize they are being used. Simple Simons!! FYI..as far as women are concerned…NOW is the Hall of Shame!! They waited two whole days to condemn the comments about Palin’s daughter. Did you read their statement: “the group says conservatives have been just as guilty, over the years, of sexism. “NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren’t professed conservatives,” NOW writes.” They are actually claiming it is the fault of Conservatives!! (Bush) Amazing!!

Dude. It’s modern slang English. You sound like one of those guys who says … “chill? Chill what? Why does it need to be cold?”

Sympathyf**k is a term you may get. Maybe not. Hatef**k is more about using sex as an emotional WMD. In general slang use there’s never any hint of violence (other than emotional.)

Good grief, this term has been in movies for a while now.
******************************************************
Thank you! Through all the comments no one pointed out that “rape” was interpreted and not specifically said. I was offended up until I read “hate f***”, then I realized someone was stirring up a whole lot of garbage on something that should be ignored. Hate f*** is a term that’s been used in for years to mean someone you don’t necessarily like, but would still have sex with. It has never, in the circles I’ve been around, meant or implied rape.

It’s articles like this that distance good conservatives from the younger generations. The “young” conservatives out their have really never lived life, and those that have generally stay away from discussions like this, as they know they are counterproductive. Instead of railing about a dumb Playboy article everyone on this board she be discussing the issue with the IG or the government take over of big businesses. This nonsense just waste time and makes the conservative viewpoint less attractive to those in the middle.

Liberals will sell their souls to the devil (or anyone willing to buy them for big bucks!) so they can have their 15 minutes of fame! They’ve taken over an hour now, and its the same old stuff! Double talk! Secret pacts! I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine!

And on top of the sundae they are trying to feed you is not a sacred cherry, but rather a bomb ready to be set off at the precise moment they are gearing up for! Who did the Clintons have sleep over? Chinese? Who do the Obama’s have in their sack…Muslims!

Wake up America, smell the stench in Washington before it ends up in your backyard!

David S……(audible snort). Imagine going into a public restroom stall and finding the toilet “unflushed.” THAT is my gut reaction to “men” like David S. who will make somebody a fine wife some day.

And frankly, I’m getting real tired of women’s this and women’s that in this thread. Its men and boys that are attacked, downgraded, and being left behind in an American society shamelessly biased in favor of women. We’re breeding a social underclass of angry, under-achieving males who are NOT going away. Remember that the next time you read about some guy wiping out his family, neighbors or co-workers for no apparent reason.

Malkin is not like you think. She is passionate about exposing the morons on the left and she doesn’t invite attacks like this. You’re almost justifying it. Malkin is also right and uses facts when she makes her points, much like Ann Coulter does, but is still hated by retards on the left. Just jealousy..and maybe you are too..Amanda Carpenter is so hot…

Because we’ve had 8 years of conservative crap shoved down our throats and we’re just totally burned out. It’ll take a couple of years at least to readjust. We’ve watched the hatred, the attacks, the lying, the twisting and spinning, racism and greed for a very long time. But now we’re running the country, so sit back and shut the F*** up.

Conservatives being dumb(lacking creativity actually) don’t understand that they have been hijacked over the generations. Now they work as the pack mules and warriors for liberalism.

Not only its believes but its government/procedural tactics too. Both of those conservatives say they don’t like/want, but they defend them anyway, because they’re born conformists (they don’t think about society and possible alternatives).

Since liberalism has slow cooked the fog of society though hijacking it (made possible through effective use of economic protectionism), conservatives simply defend the liberal zeitgeist without even understanding that that is what they are doing.

…Females should not be dictating terms to anyone ever. Especially true since they use conspiratorial tactis. They should be grateful –like tamed shrews. Anything else is LIBERALISM.

Conservatives are going to have to make decision in the coming two + continent wide civil war. Are you conservatives or simply the Useful Idiot warrior drones and pack mules of the liberal ethos?

Do unto others as you wish to be done by . Whatever happened to the meaning of those words? For gotten or never known in the first place. Has hatefulness, selfishness and whatever else the liveing code anymore? I’m very glad I was brought up with and try to live by VALUES

This and the Palin/Letterman issue will just be a ruffle in the waters of the press unless the public cry out and expect things to be done to correct the issue. If the public cries out where the top brass of CBS and other parts of the media knows that it is not just a few right wing nuts that care about these issues then and only then will they respond! Below is a response from the local CBS station:
_________________
I will pass along your e-mail to CBS along with others we have received. You can also write them at audsvcs@cbs.com

I hope Dave realizes he crossed the line by making jokes about a minor – my guess is he would feel similar if someone made jokes about his son Harry.

So If anyone has an inclination to make excuses for ANY perpetrator, they do so at their own peril. Victims come in all sizes, genders, colors and religions. Rape has been a tool of terror against enemies in wartime and is just as abhorrent at any other time. Anybody who sees it as entertaining or titillating needs therapy and a reality check.

Those without the courage to stand up against rape of any kind are just one kind, COWARD.

I’m an equal opportunity defender of the victim and worst nightmare of a perpetrator. Thou shalt not get away with it as far as I’m concerned.

It’s been fun reading this. Not cause I needed to know the answer; it’s 1 DUH!, but because of all the reasoning goin on up in heah. I had to google the anteaters vs the helmets thing LOL. I’d bet that anteater reference would make the nocircs laugh…NOT. I love that liberal rag, ‘The New Yorker’ for the cartoons and to marvel at how eloquently their writers can defend … untruth. It’s sad the jurassic media have helped people think of conservatives as being non-thinkers. IMO, political-correctness is an oxymoron. Most liberal-pods should perhaps join a 12-step to overcome their heavy use of oxi-moronia.

While I more often than not vote for the Democratic party. I have voted Republican, and if I knew I never would again, I would still remain an Independent. People within a “party” can’t really agree on EVERYTHING and that’s a good thing. People need individualism. When we become sheep to either side, we ignore our own truths if they don’t fit the agenda. We go against our own principles because we can’t lose cheap political points. Even if those points cost some of our soul, our morals, our own self interest! Both sides do it and it isn’t very productive. No side and no one person has all the answers. Liberals and conservatives need to learn how to really debate things without trying to take each other down. We are all in this together. It’s time to grow up people! Anyone with any moral compass about rape and the treatment of women should have found this article disgusting! If you enjoyed it whether you are liberal or conservative, you have issues towards women. Politics don’t give you a pass. If anything, liberals are the ones who care about ALL people right? Whether it’s the homeless pedophile under the bridge or the woman who wants to abort her baby. I’m sure not all liberals agree with everything a homeless pedophile thinks, but they are somehow worth more than a conservative woman who says she’s against abortion? I don’t understand any of this logic. It’s one nazi extremism to them next! I say we throw out the idea of “parties” and just vote on people and ideas. Debate everyone on policies, not just those on the other team. That’s just my humble opinion and if you don’t agree with me, than you sir are worse than Hitler! LOL

This is terrible. I wouldn’t consider myself feminist or conservative and I would speak up about something like this. I can’t believe anyone would think someone deserved that! I support Sarah Palin but I’m also pro-choice. I… wow…. the guy who wrote that article must be a real jerk. People like him and those who stand by make me sick! It’s not right. Our species is one messed up species, we don’t seem to do anything right. I’m just a teenager and I get how wrong this is. Can’t the people who were verbally attacked do something about it? I would be really afraid of this guy if i were them. Why should I respect my elders when they make horrible decisions like this? Men and women should realize that they are both PEOPLE! There is no big difference between us. People don’t judge a female cat differently than a male one. People should put aside their chauvinistic ideas. I hope people start using their brains…but I doubt I’ll ever see the day.

Why should Republicans care about laws to make women have their rapist baby?
They killed Martin Luther King, Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, & invaded Iraq. They want to cut Social Security, the VA –Immigration– Gay Marriage-Unemployment-Medicare-Health care & The Department of Education!- Why? So rich people won’t pay taxes. What more can you expect from a bunch of Satanist!